Time != Money ?

[DionysusToast]

We see many threads about potential returns on here. Whilst there seem to be a lot of opinions about what sort of returns are available, there is little discussion on the amount of effort expended to get these returns.

Is the effort irrelevant? Can you make 100% a year (or whatever) just as easily with 10 minutes a day as you can if you put in 10 hours a day?

Of course, the laws of diminishing returns must apply - if you put in 18 hours a day, then there is little doubt that this will guarantee lower returns.

So - does time not equal money here?

 

[HowardCohodas]

Yes!

 

[rathcoole_exile]

I usually find that the money depends on Short Time or Long Time

 

[Hotch]

Time > Money

 

[new_trader]

I think this is the code:

if (time==money)

{

money = sex;

do
{
sex;

} while (money>0);


}

else
time=trading;

Console.Write("What the phuck, my stop has been hit again!");

 

[Hilarymannah]

DT,...You ever heard of the term "analysis paralysis",.... lighten up dude,. you might enjoy life a bit more !!

Time is all we have,.. the money is a consequence,.try not to mix the two, it causes stress !!

 

[meanreversion]

New trader, are you somehow equating likelihood of sex to the amount of one's wealth? Women aren't that shallow you know!

As Jennifer Lopez once sang "even if you were broke, my love don't cost a thing". There's an example of a low maintenance woman who'd happily go for a pint and a curry.

 

[BSD]

I've always found in most walks of life that less is more, that the harder you try, the less you get.

Take it seriously, but play it lightly.

If one could catch every wiggle in markets and keep compounding putting in 18 hour days would make sense, but as one can't do either it's much easier and relaxed doing like a Zen master, aligning the forces of the Universe behind you by letting them do the work by going for the big swings and just giving them time to develop.

Also, putting in 18 hour days is just gonna give you major stress, frequent headaches, and derive yummy mummies at starbucks or in nightlife from good company, all while making an eye doctor and optician rich but otherwise keeping your money in the bank instead of spreading it around in cafés, bars and good clubs like decent, altruistic people should do.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Work smarter not harder.

Time is money whether earning or spending.

 

[BSD]

I think this is the code:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_qAtwMDFk&feature=related

 

[Black Swan]

Also, putting in 18 hour days is just gonna give you major stress, frequent headaches, and derive yummy mummies at starbucks..

So if we get too stressed we should got to Starbucks and chat up Yummy Mummys? Ace..

As you get better at the job you need to spend far less time making the money..

But, IMO for the vast majority of us (not simply the savant trading children who appear to *get it* from day zero) you can't gain the knowledge at this job (in any of its forms) without putting in the thousands of hours research and practice. Only going through that pain, crashing through the many barriers can you then emerge with the emotional scars and into the light. When you 'arrive' you do then think "fook, what was all that about? It is a lot *easier* than I thought.."

I can recall the stress of putting on approx. 35 FX trades in a couple of sessions 'offa' 3 min TFs, feeling utterly exhausted, spaced out, battered both physically and emotionally...Wouldn't do it now because; it's a waste of energy, time, and broker fees, but could do it without raising my heartbeat by much, whilst yawning through boredom and still finding time for lulz with you lot and no doubt be profitable most days.

 

[trendie]

Time(ing) is Money!

You can either trade for 18 hours a day, or know which couple of hours in that 18 hours is most profitable. (80/20 rule)

"There is a tide in the affairs of man, which, if taken at the flood, .........."

 

[BSD]

I don't believe in talent or luck either Swanie.

What it takes to be great

Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work

By Geoffrey Colvin, senior editor-at-large
October 19 2006: 3:14 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- What makes Tiger Woods great? What made Berkshire Hathaway (Charts) Chairman Warren Buffett the world's premier investor? We think we know: Each was a natural who came into the world with a gift for doing exactly what he ended up doing. As Buffett told Fortune not long ago, he was "wired at birth to allocate capital." It's a one-in-a-million thing. You've got it - or you don't.

Well, folks, it's not so simple. For one thing, you do not possess a natural gift for a certain job, because targeted natural gifts don't exist. (Sorry, Warren.) You are not a born CEO or investor or chess grandmaster. You will achieve greatness only through an enormous amount of hard work over many years. And not just any hard work, but work of a particular type that's demanding and painful.


Born Winner? Golf champ Tiger Woods (pictured at 3 years old) never stopped trying to improve.

Woods (pictured in 2001) devoted hours to practice and even remade his Swing twice, because that's what it took to get better.

Buffett, for instance, is famed for his discipline and the hours he spends studying financial statements of potential investment targets. The good news is that your lack of a natural gift is irrelevant - talent has little or nothing to do with greatness. You can make yourself into any number of things, and you can even make yourself great.

Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well. British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

To see how the researchers could reach such a conclusion, consider the problem they were trying to solve. In virtually every field of endeavor, most people learn quickly at first, then more slowly and then stop developing completely. Yet a few do improve for years and even decades, and go on to greatness.

The irresistible question - the "fundamental challenge" for researchers in this field, says the most prominent of them, professor K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University - is, Why? How are certain people able to go on improving? The answers begin with consistent observations about great performers in many fields.

Scientists worldwide have conducted scores of studies since the 1993 publication of a landmark paper by Ericsson and two colleagues, many focusing on sports, music and chess, in which performance is relatively easy to measure and plot over time. But plenty of additional studies have also examined other fields, including business.

No substitute for hard work
The first major conclusion is that nobody is great without work. It's nice to believe that if you find the field where you're naturally gifted, you'll be great from day one, but it doesn't happen. There's no evidence of high-level performance without experience or practice.

Reinforcing that no-free-lunch finding is vast evidence that even the most accomplished people need around ten years of hard work before becoming world-class, a pattern so well established researchers call it the ten-year rule.

What about Bobby Fischer, who became a chess grandmaster at 16? Turns out the rule holds: He'd had nine years of intensive study. And as John Horn of the University of Southern California and Hiromi Masunaga of California State University observe, "The ten-year rule represents a very rough estimate, and most researchers regard it as a minimum, not an average." In many fields (music, literature) elite performers need 20 or 30 years' experience before hitting their zenith.

So greatness isn't handed to anyone; it requires a lot of hard work. Yet that isn't enough, since many people work hard for decades without approaching greatness or even getting significantly better. What's missing?

Practice makes perfect
The best people in any field are those who devote the most hours to what the researchers call "deliberate practice." It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.

For example: Simply hitting a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why most golfers don't get better. Hitting an eight-iron 300 times with a goal of leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of the time, continually observing results and making appropriate adjustments, and doing that for hours every day - that's deliberate practice.

Consistency is crucial. As Ericsson notes, "Elite performers in many diverse domains have been found to practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day, including weekends."

Evidence crosses a remarkable range of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers) averaged 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over their lives; the next-best averaged 7,500 hours; and the next, 5,000. It's the same story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.

The skeptics
Not all researchers are totally onboard with the myth-of-talent hypothesis, though their objections go to its edges rather than its center. For one thing, there are the intangibles. Two athletes might work equally hard, but what explains the ability of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to perform at a higher level in the last two minutes of a game?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm

Of course the Universe plays a role too as as per your ability to align it behind you with your mental strength, I mean not every guy getting a drivers licencse is gonna have a chance at beating Michael Schumacher obviously, but even his brother who played at the same level ultimately failed because he just didn't have what imo is the most important thing to success, along with the above deliberate practise, and that's realizing that thoughts are things, knowing you're gonna win without having any doubts, vizualizing success and then letting go, letting go both of fear of not winning and ego driven pride in knowing you've won before you have.

May the force be with you kinda stuff or like Zen archery:

The archer ceases to be conscious of himself as the one who is engaged in hitting the bull's-eye which confronts him. This state of unconscious is realized only when, completely empty and rid of the self, he becomes one with the perfecting of his technical skill, though there is in it something of a quite different order which cannot be attained by any progressive study of the art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery

 

[meanreversion]

Tiger was playing at 2, he clearly does have a gift.

 

[BSD]

(80/20 rule)

That really is ubiquitous in all walks of life, it's one of the guiding principles of my life, identify the 20 that generate the 80 and spend the rest of the time having a good time, making others happy, spreading good Karma through the Universe.

Have a great time today and tonight, all.

Off to take my wifes girlfriends out to some sightseeing. (With my wife haha.)

 

[meanreversion]

You could argue that his feet were slightly open to the target line and that he allowed the club to go far past parallel at the top of the backswing, but he probably had those faults fixed by age 3.

 

[BSD]

You could argue that his feet were slightly open to the target line and that he allowed the club to go far past parallel at the top of the backswing, but he probably had those faults fixed by age 3.

 

[Black Swan]

You could argue that his feet were slightly open to the target line and that he allowed the club to go far past parallel at the top of the backswing, but he probably had those faults fixed by age 3.

Did you not notice the fit bird that walked past in the background? Put him right off..

 

[meanreversion]

You'd rather watch a clip of T Woods than go sightseeing?

What sights are you going to see anyway?

 

[BSD]

You'd rather watch a clip of T Woods than go sightseeing?

What sights are you going to see anyway?

Haha

Hamburg, they're visiting us here for New Years, and party time tonite.

Lovely